The church as missional seems to bring up many, many apparent contradictions in its discussion.
1. Do we build community first that is attractive to others (John 17) or is community to be build around its mission as a core identity of that community? I’ve never come up with a solid answer to this question… I wonder if it can be a "both / and."
2. Are we to be always "sent ones" (apostolic) in our mission endeavors as in Luke 10, or does most reaching out to others take place within our oikos connections (discussed in Petersen’s book, The Insider– I summarized this book in some earlier blogs that start here). It seems to me that, again, both are important. Perhaps each as its season in our life?
3. Are we leaven that works quietly within the context we find ourselves in, or are we light that is set on a hill creating some type of public awareness? Are we to be mostly about doing and caring for others ("if necessary use words") or is there a time and place for mostly proclaiming good news?
I have been looking at some of these questions in light of different spiritual gift "leanings." In fact, we have been in the process of identifying our own "gift leanings" using the five-fold ministry of Eph 4– apostle, prophet, evangelist, teacher, and pastor. The idea is that most people tend to lean toward one of these types of gift-areas more than others. We are using this simply as a method for dialogue about the different ways that people are gifted– and how the differing gifts may be used missionally in different ways.
For example– those who lean toward the apostolic may be those who are more excited about crossing cultural-group boundaries (whether locally or overseas). They may think nothing about going out to different types of neighborhoods, taking incarnational ministry into ghettos, meeting new and different people, or joining a mission trip to Timbuktu (a real town in Mali, by the way–I’ve been there).
Those who lean toward the prophetic may have a greater excitement and propensity toward the miraculous and the marketplace. They want to be part of taking healings, prophetic words, and prayers for people wherever they go.
The pastoral "leaners" may be those who want to take compassion, compassion, compassion. They might be the ones who say with Francis: "Let all the brothers… preach by their deeds." They are comfortable bandaging up the broken and caring for widows and orphans as their primary missional endeavors.
The evangelist leaning is the desire to see people make those clear conversion decisions. It seems to me that there is a time and place for "the closers." Those who are gifted in this area seem to do this naturally and have an innate sense about the right timing for it without causing people to feel "dumped on" or hammered.
Finally, the teacher leaning is, perhaps, those who have such a passion to see people "grounded" in the story of Scripture.
I realize that this is very simplistic, but my point is to create some dialogue around being missional that allows for differences. The body of Christ is infinitely varied so, it seems to me, that as we come into our own spiritual identities our missional activities will be as varied as we are.
I’m concerned that almost any missional discussion tends to have that "this is the way it’s done" air about it which creates a narrowness. Nevetheless if we DON’T have missional discussions and encouragement we seem to have a strong self-centered tendency to lapse into a place of comfortable inertia. So… we need the dialogue… Can we make room for differences and variety?
Comments
9 responses to “Missional Contradictions and Differing Spiritual Gifts”
“…we have been in the process of identifying our own “gift leanings” using the five-fold ministry of Eph 4– apostle, prophet, evangelist, teacher, and pastor.”
Do these five gifts tend to be the most commonly believed in or accepted, in your experiences Roger? Have you seen other gifts being accepted by a “body of believers” as easily or readily, or do most people fail to recognize other gifts that are in the spotlight less often?
I hope that believers readily accept all of the spiritual gifts in Scripture, i.e. 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12. I see the five gift ministries of Ephesians 4 as kind of “gift categories” in that the entire church is equipped by these five roles. Therefore these gift-roles must equip all believers in all the gifts.
I am really hi-jacking these terms in that I am suggesting that, since the entire body of Christ is equipped by these five roles, then the whole body of Christ can be broadly categorized by these leanings.
Thus, I am not trying to pin people down into “having” one of these five gifts, but only suggesting that these five gift “leanings”, as I call them, provide five broad categories for believers to see how they are spiritually made.
I’ve never thought of them as possible catagories to view the other giftings…very interesting. One could almost “divide up” (poor choice of wording) what gift leanings each of the five “catagories” would be more suitable to disciple or responsible for equipping. Not 100% responsible, since it should fall on all five. Does that make sense?
A friend of mine told me that each of the spiritual gifts are rooted in one of the fruits of the spirit. This causes thoughts like your post has done here. Appreciate it.
Peace to you.
I’ve always been skeptical of the whole “spiritual gift” idea. I mean, those test you take are so…ridiculously unspiritual. Basically, it doesn’t tell me what my “spiritual” gift is…it just tells me about my personality. I thought your 5-fold dicussion (Apostolic, Evangelist, Pastor, etc.) was very useful. Don’t know that I’ve heard that before. I think you hit the “nail on the head”…we tend to think our “giftedness” is THE mission everyone should be focused on…you’re on to something. I’m thinking…thanx.
Fr’nklin
Perhaps because of our culture, we get stuck in the “do we do this, or do we do it that way” kind of thinking. Not that the giftings are not importatant – we should be about finding them – but, maybe we have to cool our jets on the doing part and focus more on listening. All great awakenings and revivals seemed to have stemmed from those who heard something from God, some sort of revelation(ie: Welsh Revival, Martin Luther, etc.).
Maybe the missing ingredient to our “leanings”(5-fold and other giftings)is the revelation and direction on when and how to administer them. Maybe we need to seek the Father both individually and corporately to discover what he wants to do in and with our fellowships. Jesus only did and said what he heard and saw from the Father and that proved to be very effective. Honestly, it is a big adjustment for me to move in this direction. It requires more faith and trust for us to be sensitive to what He is saying than it does to rely on our tangible gifts and methods. If we are to find unity in our gifts and leanings, I can imagine no other way than trusting in the father to bring us together.
It seems like Chris has really hit on something here. I want to try to box in and categorize what I and my local body are and do, rather than listen to God and what he is speaking to and through my heart. Eldredge’s “Waking the Dead” has much to say about our NEW heart and God’s conversation to and through it. When I categorize my gifts, I have a tendency to try to head off in that direction in autopilot, rather than just listen to God and, as Chris says of Jesus, do what He(I)see the Father doing.
If I hear my Father asking something of me, do I do it, or not do it because it fits or doesn’t fit into my skill set? I think I just press on, asking for His grace and power and trust Him for the future.
Great comments y’all. I appreciate it.
I think often we have used something like “finding your gift” to then create a program or pigeon-hole people into certain ministries. The church has been particularly guilty of helping people find their gifts and then helping them plug their gifts into the church’s ministry– to serve the needs of “the church.” In this way, the church uses (maybe abuses) the process and takes over the crucial role of each person, as Chris said, hearing the Father’s voice for him or her self and following Him.
On the other hand, talking about giftings, for me, is simply about creating conversations that affirm each of us in our uniqueness–hopefully opening our ears more fully to what the Father is speaking.
Maybe it’s just me, but sometimes it’s easier for me to see how the Father is working through others then it is to see the potential in what he has created me to be. Conversing about different gifts, styles, personalities, and ministries opens my limited thinking about myself to see more possibilities in myself. In this way, hopefully, I become better able to hear what my Father is trying to say to my, very often, dull ears.
Any way you look at it, I like the encouragement here that it’s not about “the doing.” It’s about listening and watching what the Father’s doing.
Good to hear from you guys.
Missional DNA… Describing Foundational Missional Concepts
…
I’m just wandering if you have read Wolfgang Simson’s Houses That Change The World? In this he identifies the five spiritual gifts of Eph. 4 as an underpinning or infrastructure from which to build the house church movement. It’s a good read and one that we are using for our work in Florence, Italy.
As to your first question, I believe that if we are authentic to who we are as a community, and that as a community we are genuinely pursuing closer union with God, then we will be attractive to those who are seeking. In this case it is a both/and situation. You are right in saying that it is not about “doing” but about “being” in the sense of being who we are and being secure in that (ie not worrying about admitting our faults to one another). I believe that it is the blunt hypocrisy of pretending that you are someone you are not that has turned many people off traditional churches, and so it is one of the first areas that we need to address. I wrote a bit on this on my webpage recently which I can send if you’re interested.